...
| Contributor | What did you do last week? | What will you do this week? | Are there any impediments in your way? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Example: Sastry | Nothing | Nothing | Nope |
| Dileep | Worked on unit/functional testing with OOF-HAS | Had some trouble with Mocking MUSIC. See notes below. | |
| NOTE: we should have these captured from next week |
Links and additional notes
...
- A PhD student that has worked on Minizinc models for Software-defined Constrained Optimal Routing Platform for SDN (article link). Link for slides is here.
- Arun Arora from VMWare will participate in end-to-end integration work (MC, OOF, etc., from vCPE perspective)
- Ramki's question on port numbers: are they fixed (yes), do we want to keep them so (maybe):
- As an example, OSDF has 14699 and we don't want it to be so.
- With K8S, we do not even need to specify ports (via proxies). However, how would we reconcile with that?
- Decide on which processes go inside K8S pods
- A container specifies a port to bind to (inside a pod or container). K8S will provide a proxy for other components to connect to this container. So, modules can have their own ports without ever exposing them and only expose via proxies. Only need to ensure that no collisions occur within a pod.
- Older code base was on a "large docker host" and multiple applications had to be on same IP, hence port numbers like 14699.
- Conclusion: we can keep weird port numbers, and can use proxies, and one does not interfere with another
Dileep worked with unit tests for HAS with MUSIC. Mocked pecan request, but it expects a Conductor controller service to be up... Need to mock that. In an offline meeting with Dileep, Sastry showed how some corresponding complex objects are mocked in OSDF (e.g. Flask "g" object in osdf/mainapp/test_osdfapp.py)